Ayn Rand vs. Libertarian Party
Posted by WWJGD 12 years ago to Philosophy
Not sure whether to post this under "Economics" or "Philosophy," as it pertains to the intersection of the two. Oh well, here it is under the latter.
I presume it is already well-known to the readers here that Ayn Rand despised the Libertarians. I've never seen anything from her that explained why, other than a vague quote about license that seems more of a Straw Man to me than anything else.
Now allow me change the subject.
It is clear that Ayn Rand understood economics, and especially the economics of the USA, better than probably any non-economist of her time. As far as I know, she had no formal training in the field, no credentials, and I've never seen her claim that she did.
Any yet, she explained the superiority of Capitalism just as well as Friedman, Hayek, Mises, and others of the Austrian School. In my mind, they explained the mechanics of why and how free-market Capitalism works, while she explained its moral superiority.
So she had a lot of friends (in the sense of "like-minded folks") in the Austrian School. Heck, Alan Greenspan even studied under her. Then abandoned all of his principles, but that's a whole 'nother story.
But then there's Murray Rothbard.
He's the so-called "Anarcho-Capitalist" that founded (or co-founded?) the Libertarian Party. As far as I know, he's generally considered to be an Austrian.
I have a theory that it's a certain subset of Rothbard's ideas that are the crux of Rand's hatred for the LP.
I want to see what other people here know about the rift between the Objectivists and the Libertarians before I mention what my theory is. I don't want to skew the results I get.
Anybody know anything?
Thanks in advance.
I presume it is already well-known to the readers here that Ayn Rand despised the Libertarians. I've never seen anything from her that explained why, other than a vague quote about license that seems more of a Straw Man to me than anything else.
Now allow me change the subject.
It is clear that Ayn Rand understood economics, and especially the economics of the USA, better than probably any non-economist of her time. As far as I know, she had no formal training in the field, no credentials, and I've never seen her claim that she did.
Any yet, she explained the superiority of Capitalism just as well as Friedman, Hayek, Mises, and others of the Austrian School. In my mind, they explained the mechanics of why and how free-market Capitalism works, while she explained its moral superiority.
So she had a lot of friends (in the sense of "like-minded folks") in the Austrian School. Heck, Alan Greenspan even studied under her. Then abandoned all of his principles, but that's a whole 'nother story.
But then there's Murray Rothbard.
He's the so-called "Anarcho-Capitalist" that founded (or co-founded?) the Libertarian Party. As far as I know, he's generally considered to be an Austrian.
I have a theory that it's a certain subset of Rothbard's ideas that are the crux of Rand's hatred for the LP.
I want to see what other people here know about the rift between the Objectivists and the Libertarians before I mention what my theory is. I don't want to skew the results I get.
Anybody know anything?
Thanks in advance.
Then for several years USLP fell under the control of anti-Rand and anti-abortion 'constitutional' conservatives on-and-off so Rand's impatience was obvious. The anarchists and voluntarists led by Gilson kicked these guys out in '83 after Rand died, but the right-wing keeps infiltrating every 10 years or so. Check on the web for some old-timer memoirs but what is commented here is basically the reverse of the truth. The LP ran a good candidate for Prez this year after again kicking out the conservatives.
Rothbard was also Gilson's friend and wrote extensively on libertarian-direction ideas. The US LP is libertarian-direction BTW--see the bottom of the site. You have to realize what KIND of anarchist or libertarian Rand was discussing--until 83 it was a pretty flexible term until Gilson got people in line. Context! See http://www.libertarianinternational.org Libertarianism is now a world cultural and civic movement in every country under the LIO.
As for why Rand despised Libertarians, there are several quote from her on the subject here:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?p...
But, Shrugger has a point. Today's Libertarians, like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, don't promote anarchy. I don't know if Rand would approve of the party today, as it seems Rothbard soured her on their stance with his back and forth.
I agree that they most closely align with the tenets of Objectivism that the other political parties.
I'm looking forward to reading your theory.
The quotes also seem to lead away from my theory -- except for one small, cryptic aside, which is fascinating. But only if my theory is true. I'm still not ready to mention it.
Good to hear of the on-and-off relationship between Rothbard and Rand. I wonder how much of her animosity is purely personal?
You know that Ayn excommunicated Nathaniel Brandon (whom you might call the "other, unauthorized" branch of Objectivism -- we've heard that one before too, eh?) for making a speech to a Libertarian Party meeting, right?
Anyone else know anything else?
Somewhere we need a balance somewhere in-between.
Ayn Rand wrote about the evils of anarchy (I don't have an actual citation yet but will look it up)... equating it to "mob rule" and she discussed the Libertarian Party of her day as a group of anarchists.
The platform of the Libertarian Party of today is vastly different from that of its earliest years. While there are still a small number of individuals that espouse anarchist views, the vast majority are for a "LIMITED" federal government. In fact, most Libertarians today are staunch supporters of the Constitution and want to limit the Federal Government to the powers enumerated therein.
I believe, if Ayn Rand were alive today, she would agree that the Libertarian Party more closely promotes the tenets of Objectivism than any other political party in our nation's history.
I do not agree with EVERYTHING in the Libertarian Party platform, though I do agree with most of it. That being said... there is absolutely NOTHING in the Libertarian Party platform that I could construe as evil. I can't say that about any other political party... and I am confident Ayn Rand would agree with that assessment.
"I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism."
Ayn Rand “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Sept. 1971, 1
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism."
Ayn Rand “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 202
Both of these quotes can also be found in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. The following link might prove helpful:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libert...
If someone has any additional information regarding Ayn Rand's dislike of the libertarian movement I would be anxious to see it.
More importantly... if anyone here has ANY objective criteria that might dissuade me... or any advocate of reason... from supporting the libertarian movement in general, and the Libertarian Party specifically... please be kind enough to provide it.
Remember, politics are an application of philosophy. Libertarianism differs from Objectivism in that it takes the applications of philosophy as the primary, thus seemingly having hidden premises.
In other words, most libertarians arrive at the superiority of freedom based on epistemology--relativism. Since no one's truth is superior to anyone else's, the government has no right to impress any one truth on the populace. Relativism comes from the primacy of consciousness, which directly contradicts Rand's base premise of primacy of existence. Embracing relativism and freedom makes decisions pragmatic (and arguably hedonistic). Note how many libertarians even today embrace the (what I would call childish) idea that "because I can do something, I should do something.)
[FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]